http://www.washingtonspectator.org/articles/20110901budgethustle.cfm
Perry provides another demonstration of how GOP insistence on ideology over facts turns running a state into ruining it. Now he is campaigning to ruin on a larger scale.

I saw the Republican debate held at the Reagan Library and missed the Tampa debate which was too bad since it was in my part of the world. I had a meeting to attend then I had to leave to pick up dh at the airport and then we had dinner with friends. So it was a busy evening.

The only Republican that makes any sense to me is Huntsman. I like him but he's too cerebral for most Republicans. My intel is that it's going to be Romney since he's got the support of the money folks.

I'm appalled at some of my fellow Democrats who seem to be rooting for a Bachmann or Perry candidacy because they think they're so extreme they can't win against Obama. This seems crazy to me. Anything that makes it remotely possible that one of these non-reality based candidates could win is so dangerous. I want both parties to run the very best they have to offer because that is best for the country. President Bachmann or President Perry would endanger not just the country but the world. Romney is problematic because he changes positions like he changes shoes. But Huntsman seems to have some potential as a reasonable option, which makes it harder to win his party's nomination. The GOP has such a tough way to go - to win the primary the candidates have to sound practically crazy then they have to convince the rest of the country they really didn't mean it in time for the general election._________________Justin managed to look superior and bored and disbelieving all at once. No mean feat for a man who'd just fallen from a tree.

But Huntsman seems to have some potential as a reasonable option, which makes it harder to win his party's nomination. The GOP has such a tough way to go - to win the primary the candidates have to sound practically crazy then they have to convince the rest of the country they really didn't mean it in time for the general election.

This is why I like Huntsman. He comes across as the voice of reason showing there are a few sane Republicans left in the party. A lot can happen in the next year leading up to the election so I am sure we will see many twists and turns. A 3rd party candidate may even appear or even a 4th party candidate to liven things a bit.

I do believe this election is about the future of America and where we are headed. Do we go forward or are we content to live in the past? The sad part is that we won't have a say in the decisions that are being made. It will be decided by the folks with the power, money and influence with the rest of us just along for the ride. If you think about it, it's always been that way, we just never saw it nor has it been so extreme.

Read Naomi Klein's, The Shock Doctrine, as it spells out the blueprint for creating mega-crises which causes governments and countries to change their way of governing and operating when facing disasters.

The September 15 issue of the Washington Spectator has more about Perry. If you can't get the whole issue without a subscriber sign-in, there is probably info elsewhere under search terms like "Father's Day Massacre" or vindictive vetoes. His actions as governor earned descriptions like irrationality, callousness, vindictiveness, stupidity & chicken sh_t.

I also saw this quote on the online Hightower Lowdown:
Dwight Eisenhower: "Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security... you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believe you can [abolish it]... Their number is negligible, and they are stupid."

A big second for KarenS's recommendation of The Shock Doctrine. It's a real eye-opener.

As far as candidates go, I think Perry is fast becoming yesterday's news. The media sets up these front-runners and then knocks them down--they have to do something to keep generating stories. I agree we need a game-changer and to my mind, Ron Paul is the only candidate who fits that bill. No one else even talks about ending the myriad wars in which we are involved (Any idea how many there are right now? It's so hard to keep track, especially when most of them are covert actions). It's very telling how hard the media works to shut down coverage of Paul. Jon Stewart even did a funny bit on that, though it really isn't that funny if you think about the implications. The media is supposed to report the news, not band together and outright refuse to cover a candidate. But Ron Paul is a real threat to the existing system which has brought us where we are today, and for that reason alone his ideas are worth listening to--though you have to listen really hard in a debate since they rarely give him a chance to talk and when they do, ask him blatantly hostile questions.

The Gardasil controversy is very interesting as Perry made his executive decision to benefit the pharmaceutical company that his aid later went to work for. When he said he couldn't be bought for $5,000.00 was laughable as he was obviously bought for some amount. Hopefully, he will fade away soon.

Mark, I love the comment about Medicare! It's true for the older generation but when I talk to the Y Generation they don't expect Medicare to be there for them. So does that mean they know it's going away or they don't expect to have it when they reach 65?